Bob Iger at WDW now ... BoD to Follow?

[ford91exploder]

But that's not why Pepsi didn't want to invest in IASW. The board was extremely financially conservative at the time (they were just starting to be a serious competitor to Coke and simply were not confident their fortunes would continue) and the only reason they did it was because Joan Crawford (who was also on the board) insisted that they do so in deference to Walt Disney (she apparently threw one of her "Don't F-With Me, Fellas" speeches out). They didn't sponsor it once it got to permanent installation because by that time Crawford was being pushed off the board and highly marginalized, and it was seen as a reminder of her success (short story - they didn't to spite her).

I also think you kind of miss the point of IASW - like, the entire concept. You have to remember, this idea that there was a "small world", i.e. an increasingly "global" community was a very new, if not revolutionary concept at the time. Like, cutting edge. The statement the ride made reverberated quite widely. It may seem quite obvious today, but in the era it was created it was quite a remarkable statement. Today, in addition to it's historical significance, it's also quite well known/respected for it's "pop art" cred.

IASW is quintessentially Disney.

If you read about the Chicago Worlds Fair and IASW popularity you would also learn the lines were sometimes up to 5 hours long to ride this attraction.

 

[ford91exploder]

Very much wrong!

An innovative, different two story layout with 4 high speed elevators that are very well hidden.

Ride system is the same. And very good it is too. Disney could have surpassed it if they'd continued pushing the EMV development.

Would have cost money...

 

[NoChesterHester]

Sure, but Disney has a world to work with. Disney's finest theme park environments and experiences are not based on the Disney animated canon, never mind other acquired IP. But rather on New Orleans, classic Americana, futurism, space age, pirates, haunted houses.

With the possible exception of DCA 2.0, every park's greatest environment and greatest ride is not based on movie IP. That is for the others, the parks who lacked the tradition, innate sentiment, and know-how to Disneyfy existing worlds of the public imagination, and therefore had to rely on movies (or books, or now video games) doing that work for them.

The world has changed a lot. Modern theme park companies aren't going to invest big without the franchise level IP. Most of the ROI comes from merchandise sales (see: Harry Potter). Also, dedicated fans make up a small percentage of the attendance. You need mass market appeal now to drive turn style clicks and only big populous recognized names are a safe bet.

 

[ford91exploder]

The physical assets of Enron are still around under new ownership. The trading shop and corporate management are long gone. It was really the trading shop, senior management and the accountants that committed fraud. The guys working on the ops side at power plants or gas pipelines that Enron owned were not doing anything wrong and likely kept their jobs under new ownership. Right after the collapse Dynegy put in a bid to buy Enron, but they backed out after getting a closer look at the books.

There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything similar to Enron is happening at TWDC. Enron operated in a world with complex commodity trading and newly emerging electricity markets that were ripe for manipulation and fraud. They also manipulated newly created accounting guidance around derivatives. The markets that TWDC operate in are mature and somewhat regulated. It's not likely that the studios are manipulating their numbers since box office numbers are confirmed by 3rd party sources and the network TV division is highly regulated. That leaves ESPN and Parks and Resorts which are pretty straight forward businesses. It's always possible that some sort of fraud or collusion is going on at TWDC, but its a huge leap to assume that some layoffs or reorganization at the corporate office is a sign that the company is going under due to fraud.

I work for a silicon valley company and one thing that you ALWAYS look for is HOW the company spends it's money when seeking a partner for some endeavor you cannot execute on your own. Companies posting GREAT numbers yet embarking on mass layoffs and cost cutting measures are highly suspect as at least in the tech sectors are seen (and have a history of in the 'Valley) as about to blow up and doubly so when it happens in their most profitable divisions.

Look at the layoffs at P&R and ESPN - huge numbers and in ESPN's case not renewing the contracts of popular on-air personalities. At least in MY industry stuff like this is a giant red flag.

 

[Marlins1]

I don't begrudge people that have doll fetishes but I don't share their obsessive devotion. Nor have I ever been a fan of either version of El Rio del Tiempo. Frankly, I don't really like most of the attractions at any of the Disney parks. However, IMO there are enough high quality attractions at WDW worth experiencing. If I were to rate each of the attractions at WDW in order of my desire to experience them, IASW would rate way below SGE, the lumberjacks at WS and Chester & Hester's Dino-Rama.

Frankly I like attractions such as IASW so that they can gobble up tourists and make my visit more pleasurable at the attractions that interest me. But it still doesn't change the facts that Pepsi disliked the ride back in 1964, that the ride was rushed in its design and completion due to a tight time schedule and that the ride was (and is) a product of low technological design in comparison to the other 1964 World's Fair attractions created by Disney. It looks like something my grandfather would slap together in his spare time. Obviously some people like that sort of thing and I'm not being critical of their tastes but I don't share their appreciation of the ride. I consider it to be a classic in the sense that it's classic kludge because it was a quick and dirty workaround by Walt Disney in his effort to please a long time sponsor. It failed in that regard.

Once in a while things that are thrown together quickly on a tight budget work out and turn out to be unexpected classics. FOTLK is one of those and so is IASW. It does not appeal to everyone but it's staying power is huge. I never appreciated it until I rode with my daughter when she was 2 and saw how fascinated she was - ever since then I enjoy it.

 

[AEfx]

Sure, but Disney has a world to work with. Disney's finest theme park environments and experiences are not based on the Disney animated canon, never mind other acquired IP. But rather on New Orleans, classic Americana, futurism, space age, pirates, haunted houses.

With the possible exception of DCA 2.0, every park's greatest environment and greatest ride is not based on movie IP. That is for the others, the parks who lacked the tradition, innate sentiment, and know-how to Disneyfy existing worlds of the public imagination, and therefore had to rely on movies (or books, or now video games) doing that work for them.

I do get that - though on one hand I think that's largely because they simply "don't build 'em like they used to". We can't forget there also was a whole lot in Walt's original intention of Disney parks to promote films - remember, Sleeping Beauty wasn't out until several years after Disneyland opened with the castle as it's park icon. Walt very much was a pioneer of this type of promotion of theatrical films, and that was one of his selling points for Disneyland to begin with (the cross-promotion). That wasn't invented by Iger, Eisner, or even Wells, but straight from The Man himself.

I'll be honest - yeah, they can do non-IP related stuff, like EE - but...what gets me excited (and a lot of people, I think) is the same reason that in spite of the fact we argue that sequels are bad - we want to see them. We love familiarity, we love to more deeply explore the things we already love. That's why they really have a chance with Star Wars to change the theme park game, again. No longer rest on their laurels simply satisfied with financial success. I hope someone in that board meeting said they were sick and tired of the only Disney parks that really get critical acclaim are on the other side of the world.

I know I just sound like an unabashed Star Wars fanboi, LOL, but...from a practical point of view, if they really do up Star Wars land, they could have the best of both worlds - critical and financial success to a level that DHS has never seen, or that Disney parks in the US haven't had in many decades, and finally something to rival Tokyo.

 

[Cesar R M]

Good post, but I must object to this line.

From a mass market popularity standpoint Star Trek isn't on the same planet as Star Wars.

Adjusted for inflation the 11 Star Trek films have grossed $1.5 billion. That is a lot of coin and it has longevity, but the six Star Wars films have grossed $4.3 billion. In merchandise sales it is even more lop sided.

There is something about the fantasy aspect of Star Wars that resonates with the general public that little else does.

I wonder if it has to do with the fact that Star Wars was built and planned as a cinematic franchise.
while Star Trek was more for series with not much cohesive line (until TNG structured storyline)

 

[Cesar R M]

I work for a silicon valley company and one thing that you ALWAYS look for is HOW the company spends it's money when seeking a partner for some endeavor you cannot execute on your own. Companies posting GREAT numbers yet embarking on mass layoffs and cost cutting measures are highly suspect as at least in the tech sectors are seen (and have a history of in the 'Valley) as about to blow up and doubly so when it happens in their most profitable divisions.

Look at the layoffs at P&R and ESPN - huge numbers and in ESPN's case not renewing the contracts of popular on-air personalities. At least in MY industry stuff like this is a giant red flag.

While others love to say "its leaning" the company.
I disagree.
For my point of view, the wall street makes these cuts when they think they have a secure market and they no longer need the power or attraction of key employees/engineers..etc..
Its their way to reap(bonuses, payouts, stock sells) when the stocks get inflated.

 

[OneDNP]

Good post, but I must object to this line.

From a mass market popularity standpoint Star Trek isn't on the same planet as Star Wars.

Adjusted for inflation the 11 Star Trek films have grossed $1.5 billion. That is a lot of coin and it has longevity, but the six Star Wars films have grossed $4.3 billion. In merchandise sales it is even more lop sided.

There is something about the fantasy aspect of Star Wars that resonates with the general public that little else does.

I still mourn Star Trek: The Experience. I enjoy Star Wars, but my heart is with the Federation, not the Force.

 

[NoChesterHester]

I wonder if it has to do with the fact that Star Wars was built and planned as a cinematic franchise.
while Star Trek was more for series with not much cohesive line (until TNG structured storyline)

Could. I can see the differences and love my Wars, but totally enjoy Star Trek also.

My wife isn't interested in science fiction. Neither are my girls. At all. But all three LOVE Star Wars. They find it "fun."

 

[NoChesterHester]

I still mourn Star Trek: The Experience. I enjoy Star Wars, but my heart is with the Federation, not the Force.

My post is not intended to generate a Wars vs Trek debate or love fest. I am merely stating the obvious public affection and power of the Star Wars franchise. (And the money behind it all.)

 

[OneDNP]

My post is not intended to generate a Wars vs Trek debate or love fest. I am merely stating the obvious public affection and power of the Star Wars franchise. (And the money behind it all.)

Neither is mine. Just commenting with the flow of traffic.

 

[wogwog]

things actually WERE (and kinda are) still bad at WDW..
MM+ is still failing...
Systems still fail (at MK).
on busy days, their entire system can fail completely.

not to mention the maintenance issues. (which thank god they're finally fixing, these news about Pirates being fixed step by step is encouraging.. because that thing was in a PATHETICALLY SAD state).

The best thing? seems there is hope with the money being invested..specially in DHS.

But as far I know and I think @PhotoDave219 will agree.. there will be NOTHING to go to DHS for(other than fantasmic, tower of terror and RNRC by Aerosmith) due of the closures.

So, pretty sure things will get worse for Magic Kingdom before they improve.


and you know this.. because?



Well, I dont know about you, but Festival of Fantasy definitively was top notch for me.
also they get a double bonus for not using that damn castle float again.

Please please do not even mention that castle float. It still lives you know.

 

[Phil12]

But that's not why Pepsi didn't want to invest in IASW. The board was extremely financially conservative at the time (they were just starting to be a serious competitor to Coke and simply were not confident their fortunes would continue) and the only reason they did it was because Joan Crawford (who was also on the board) insisted that they do so in deference to Walt Disney (she apparently threw one of her "Don't F-With Me, Fellas" speeches out). They didn't sponsor it once it got to permanent installation because by that time Crawford was being pushed off the board and highly marginalized, and it was seen as a reminder of her success (short story - they didn't to spite her).

I also think you kind of miss the point of IASW - like, the entire concept. You have to remember, this idea that there was a "small world", i.e. an increasingly "global" community was a very new, if not revolutionary concept at the time. Like, cutting edge. The statement the ride made reverberated quite widely. It may seem quite obvious today, but in the era it was created it was quite a remarkable statement. Today, in addition to it's historical significance, it's also quite well known/respected for it's "pop art" cred.

IASW is quintessentially Disney.

Pepsi was stuck at the last minute without an attraction for the 1964 World's Fair. The reasons for that are beyond the scope of this discussion. Pepsi had been a founding sponsor at Disneyland and turned to Disney (at the last minute) in the hope they could help. Pepsi was involved in the World's Fair deal to help promote UNICEF. It would have been very bad publicity for Pepsi to have backed out of this charity involvement.

I think we all know the famous story of how Pepsi originally spoke with Admiral Joe Fowler who turned them down and advised that Disney was already working on three other World's Fair projects and that there wasn't enough time to begin another. However, when Walt Disney heard of this, he instead decided to accept the project. Why? Because Pepsi had been a Disneyland sponsor from the very beginning and Walt Disney cherished big sponsors.

Pepsi was pleased that Walt Disney accepted the project but they were not pleased with the result. Aside from your Joan Crawford drama, Pepsi had no choice but to sponsor IASW even though they considered it to be terrible. If they backed out, that would have left UNICEF up the creek without a paddle and the bad publicity from that would have been a serious threat to Pepsi's bottom line.

Once the World's Fair was over IASW came back to Disneyland. Pepsi refused to be the sponsor because they still correctly thought the ride was terrible and, of course, there was no UNICEF involvement. Remember, this was 1966. Who did Disney get to sponsor IASW? Bank of America. The same California bank that had loaned him the money to make Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs way back in 1937. And Bank of America also loaned him the money for Bambi, Cinderella, Dumbo, Fantasia, Peter Pan, Pinocchio and Three Caballeros. Bank of America also financed the construction of Disneyland and, later, Disney World.

The next question is, why did Disney get Bank of America to sponsor IASW? Because Disney had a long standing relationship with Bank of America. But also because Disney was a great customer of Bank of America! In reality, Bank of America was willing to sponsor IASW to keep a good customer.

And, yes, I fully understand the point of IASW. The theme of the fair was "Peace Through Understanding". I had the good fortune to visit. One the main reasons it was so appealing in 1964 was due to the political climate of the time. JFK had been assassinated just five months before the start of the fair and during the first season, China exploded its first atomic bomb. Cold war tensions were extremely high. The theme of IASW resonated perfectly with the 1964 World's Fair. But it paled in comparison to the other 1964 World's Fair attractions (i.e. Chunky Candy, GM, IBM, Bell Telephone, etc.). And remember, this was pre-Woodstock.

It just doesn't belong in the same category as other attractions that have better design. It was a rushed project and it looks like it.

 

[AEfx]

Pepsi was pleased that Walt Disney accepted the project but they were not pleased with the result. Aside from your Joan Crawford drama, Pepsi had no choice but to sponsor IASW even though they considered it to be terrible. If they backed out, that would have left UNICEF up the creek without a paddle and the bad publicity from that would have been a serious threat to Pepsi's bottom line.

All I know is that the board took a vote, the vote was not to support it, and she used the sway she had as a board member and the face of the company at the time to insist. I've talked to people (secretaries) that were in the meeting. It wasn't happening, which is why it was added to the roster so late. It didn't even have a theme at that point.

 

[Phil12]

Once in a while things that are thrown together quickly on a tight budget work out and turn out to be unexpected classics. FOTLK is one of those and so is IASW. It does not appeal to everyone but it's staying power is huge. I never appreciated it until I rode with my daughter when she was 2 and saw how fascinated she was - ever since then I enjoy it.

It's funny you mention FOTLK. I disliked that show very much but I would put it ahead of IASW!

 

[Phil12]

All I know is that the board took a vote, the vote was not to support it, and she used the sway she had as a board member and the face of the company at the time to insist. I've talked to people (secretaries) that were in the meeting.

Regardless, it doesn't make a difference. It's still a fact that Pepsi hated the attraction from day one.

 

[NoChesterHester]

Enough with the Small World debate. Points have been made. Let's get back on topic or don't post unless it is moving the conversation along, not just back and forth on some concept.

 

[Phil12]

Enough with the Small World debate. Points have been made. Let's get back on topic or don't post unless it is moving the conversation along, not just back and forth on some concept.

It serves to point out how corporate BoD meetings can be less than unanimous.

 

[TalkingHead]

It serves to point out how corporate BoD meetings can be less than unanimous.

It serves to point out how you can derail a thread with pages of irrelevant contrarian bickering.

Moving on...